Vrindavan Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Justice B. P. Sharma

With consent, heard finally.

The instant writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is preferred by appellant challenging order dated 15.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23654/2019 (Ramswaroop Vs. State of MP and Others ), by which the writ petition filed by petitioner-Ramswaroop (respondent No.8 herein) was allowed.

The facts, in brief, are that an advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Bagoha, Janpad Panchayat Panna, District Panna. Appellant-Vrindavan Ahirwar and Ramswaroop Yadav (respondent no.8 herein), who was the petitioner before learned Single Judge, submitted their applications. In the provisional merit list, appellant was placed at Serial No.1 and Ramswaroop Yadav at Serial No.2. An objection was thereafter raised by Ramswaroop Yadav that appellant had obtained his B.Com. degree and DCA certificate in year 2012, both as regular courses and, therefore, could not have validly pursued both courses simultaneously. District Level Selection Committee accepted the objection and deducted 50 marks awarded for DCA qualification, as a consequence of which the appellant fell to Serial No.3 and Ramswaroop Yadav was appointed as Gram Rojgar Sahayak on 28.07.2015. Appellant challenged the decision before the competent authority, which allowed his appeal on 22.11.2016. The subsequent challenge by Ramswaroop Yadav was dismissed by revisional authority on 16.05.2019. He thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P. No.23654/2019, which came to be allowed by order dated 15.01.2026.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that impugned order proceeds on an erroneous appreciation of the nature of DCA course and the applicable university and UGC guidelines. It is contended that DCA course undertaken by appellant was a part-time course and, therefore, could validly be pursued simultaneously with a regular B.Com. degree. Reliance is placed upon the opinion/clarification issued by Dr. Harisingh Gour University and the communications issued by Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication, particularly the letters dated 11.04.2015 and 01.03.2016, according to which one regular degree course could be pursued along with a part-time diploma course. According to appellant, learned Single Judge wrongly treated the DCA course as another regular degree course and failed to consider the university clarifications Annexure A2, A3 and A4 and the factual position that DCA was a part-time course. It is, therefore, argued that the orders dated 22.11.2016 and 16.05.2019 were reasoned and justified, whereas the order dated 15.01.2026 was liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submitted that appellant had, in fact, pursued both B.Com. and DCA as regular courses during the same period and was therefore not entitled to claim the marks awarded for DCA qualification. It is submitted that the relevant instructions of Dr. Harisingh Gour University dated 20.12.2012 specifically contemplated that where one programme was pursued through regular mode, the other programme had to be through distance education; simultaneous pursuit of two regular programmes was not permissible. The marksheets produced before the Court indicated that the appellant’s B.Com. as well as DCA were pursued on regular basis. It is therefore argued that appellate and revisional authorities had committed an error in permitting the appellant to retain the benefit of both qualifications. The State, however, supported the orders of the departmental authorities by submitting that the concerned university had indicated that there was no bar against pursuing two different courses simultaneously and the appellant’s grievance had already been considered by the competent authorities.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Learned Single Judge proceeded principally on the basis of notification dated 20.12.2012 issued by Dr. Harisingh Gour University and concluded that appellant could not have pursued B.Com. and DCA simultaneously on regular basis. However, the subsequent communications and clarifications issued by competent Universities, particularly Annexures A/2, A/3 and A/4, assume considerable significance. These documents indicate that DCA course undertaken by the appellant was treated as a part-time course and he was permitted to pursue it simultaneously with his regular B.Com. course. Significantly, the University itself permitted the appellant to appear in both examinations and after permitting him to undertake the courses and appear in the examinations, declared his results. There is no material to demonstrate that appellant had made any misrepresentation or furnished any incorrect information to the University for obtaining permission to pursue the courses or to appear in the examinations. Thus, appellant had acted bona fide and in accordance with the permission and clarification issued by competent authorities. The subsequent communications contained in Annexures A/2, A/3 and A/4, therefore, could not have been ignored while determining the validity of qualifications obtained by appellant.

It is also significant that after the appellant successfully completed both courses and his qualification was accepted for the purpose of preparation of merit list, his position changed and he was selected/appointed as Gram Rozgar Sahayak. Having permitted the appellant to pursue the courses, appear in both examinations and thereafter having declared his results, the authorities cannot, at a subsequent stage, seek to deprive him of the benefit of very qualification on the ground that the simultaneous pursuit of courses was impermissible, particularly when there is no allegation of fraud, suppression or misrepresentation on his part.

The principle underlying Section 115 of the Evidence Act, relating to estoppel, is attracted in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the appellant acted upon the permission and conduct of the competent University and altered his position by completing the courses, obtaining the qualifications and participating in the selection process. Further, in the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Others [(1990) 3 SCC 23] , the Apex Court categorically held that where a student/candidate has acted bona fide, submitted all requisite documents without making any false statement, fraud, or misrepresentation, and has been permitted by the competent authorities to pursue the course, appear in the examinations, and obtain the qualification, the authorities are subsequently stopped from questioning or invalidating such qualification on the ground of alleged ineligibility. It was observed that a candidate cannot be made to suffer for the administrative oversight, inaction, or subsequent change of stance by the authorities after altering their position to their detriment. This principle was further reinforced by the High Court of Orissa in Basanta Kumar Mohanty v. Utkal University and Others [1988 SCC OnLine Ori 248], which held that where an authority issues official documents or permissions through its own conduct or oversight, and a candidate acts upon them in good faith without any knowledge of disqualification, the rule of estoppel applies squarely, preventing the authority from pleading its own mistake at a belated stage to the candidate’s prejudice.

Applying the ratio of Sanatan Gauda (supra) and Basanta Kumar Mohanty (supra) to the facts at hand, since the appellant pursued the DCA course in accordance with the university permissions/clarifications and without any suppression of material facts, the principles of promissory estoppel fully apply, disentitling the authorities from depriving him of the benefit of his DCA qualification. The notification dated 20.12.2012, therefore, could not have been applied in isolation, overlooking the subsequent clarifications and the conduct of University. The orders dated 22.11.2016 and 16.05.2019 passed by the competent authorities, which had considered the aforesaid material, consequently deserved due weight.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23654/2019 (Ramswaroop Vs. The State of MP and Others ) is set aside. The orders dated 22.11.2016 and 16.05.2019 passed by the competent authorities are restored.